Mill's Harm Principle

I will first examine Mill’s “Harm Principle”, as well as his reasoning for it. The principle itself reads as follows:

Throughout his work Mill explains his principles and what he believes our laws should look like. In Mill’s harm principle he states

In the essay “America’s Unjust Drug War” by Michael Huemer, Huemer discusses the facts and opinions around the subject on whether or not the recreational use of drugs should be banned by law. Huemer believes that the American government should not prohibit the use of drugs. He brings up the point on drugs and how they harm the users and the people in the user’s life; he proves that the prohibition on drugs in unjust. Huemer believes that drug prohibition is an injustice to Americans’ natural rights and questions why people can persucute those who do drugs.

Additionally, Mill considered that humanity is hurt by quiting opinions. Firstly, he said that maybe those opinions are true. People are independent and have their own critical thinking. Nobody can jeopardize their right of own judgement. He claimed that all people are hurt by silencing true ideas.

From my perspective, there should be mandatory helmet laws throughout the United States. I have witnessed the injuries and losses of lives from those involved in accidents. Some wore helmets and some did not.

Mill claims that his purpose in writing on liberty is to assert what he describes one very simple principle. The principle that ought to govern society and that principle has come to be known as the harm principle. The individuals own good either physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant for societal intervention. The individual cannot rightfully be compelled to do or not to do because it will be better for him to do so because it is better for him to do so because it will make him happier.

Freedom is a necessary principle to abide by in order for the human race to function. On the other hand, freedom can be taken advantage of, thus resulting in harmful consequences to those directly and indirectly involved. The article, “On Liberty” by John S. Mills, places emphasis on the functioning of individual liberty and its co-existence with society. Mills stresses the limits of individual liberty through what is famously known as his Harm Principle: "the only purpose for which power may be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" (Cahn). With special consideration placed on drug use and free

My main disagreement with Mill’s Harm Principle is that indirect harm does not apply. Mill writes, “In many cases, an individual, in pursuing a legitimate object, necessarily and therefore legitimately causes pain or loss to others, or intercepts a good which they had a reasonable hope of obtaining (1009).” Who is he to say that while pursuing an object pain or loss is necessary at all? The definition of necessary, according to Webster’s Dictionary, is absolutely essential or needed to achieve a certain result or affect. I do not think that in any way it would be necessary to cause harm while trying to achieve a goal. There are so many ways to go about to achieve a goal without causing harm to someone. However, if for example, you and a coworker are in position for a promotion, you are both fighting against each other for the position, you receive the promotion and unintentionally hurt the other worker, and this harm caused does not put you at fault. If you did something evil or something that would purposely cause the individual to not get the promotion this is intentional and you should be placed at fault. In summary Mill believes that consequential harm will not apply to the harm principle; however I believe that the circumstances of the situation are very important in be able to consider whether or

Mill uses the Harm Principle to identify his argument for freedom of speech. The Harm Principle explains that the government are only justified in interfering with individuals who express their views if only their views cause harm to others. If a person’s actions only affect himself, then society, which includes the government should not be able to stop a person from doing what he wants. Three ideas helped shape the harm principle. The first idea, Mill states that the harm principle is composed of the liberty of expressing and publishing opinions as being important as the liberty of thought, which

Laws that prohibit the possession and use of street drugs are important as their aim is to protect the user, those around them, and society in general from undue harm. There has been a great push during the last 10 years to legalize marijuana and decriminalize other drugs such as cocaine and heroin on the basis that the recreational user, and even the hard-core addict, may not be causing significant harm to anyone, beyond their own personal health. In this sense, drug use is viewed as a personal choice and drug laws trample on personal freedoms without sufficient reason. Additionally, minorities are found to be arrested and convicted of drug crimes at disproportionate rates when compared to the demographics of those who use illegal drugs, which some see these type of laws as a tool of legal oppression, instead of a valid punitive function. Still, there remains sufficient reasons to maintain laws against the possession and use of controlled substances, such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin; though there is a compelling argument for the lessening of the amount punishment of the majority of users that are caught with small amounts of street drugs. This paper seeks to put forward valid reasons for the continued prohibition of drugs, while also making a case for the softening of incarceration policies.

This principle pertains to the idea that one is harmed when their individual liberties are taken away from them. We have discussed the examples of stealing and hitting another individual as being that warrant merit in this principle. Based on the idea that these two actions have harmed the liberties of the individual, Mill would agree that they should be outlawed. Today we see these illegal actions as almost innate as opposed to our government displaying paternalistic action. Additionally, the harm principle represents the idea that an individual should be allowed to make any choice they want to without interference (from whatever ruling organization) as long as that decision can only inflict harm on themselves. Mill would agree that as you step outside the bounds of harming just yourself to harming anyone else, you are restricting someone else’s liberty. Additionally, Mill’s idea of “harm” does not include emotional (say the grieving of a family after one decides to take their life). I agree completely to the first part of the harm principle in which an action that causes physical harm to someone other than the decisionmaker, that act should not be allowed. However, to the second in which harm seems purely physical, I do note a disagreement. Emotional harm is difficult to manipulate as justifying paternalistic action since there

John Stuart Mills “Harm principle” states that the only actions that can be prevented are ones that create harm. In other words, a person can do whatever he wants as long as his actions do not harm others. If a person's actions only affect himself, then society, which includes the government, should not be able to stop a person from doing what he wants. This even includes actions that a person may do that would harm the person himself. A example that I can provide to support this principle is murder, if a person murders another person then they're harming the other person. Since it's the governments job to not let citizens harm each other there's a law against murder. You can go down a ample amount of incidents that will fall under to break the “Harm principle” such as assault, rape, robbery, etc. Relating back to what Mills states as his principle a big example I can think of is the riots that have been occurring all over the United States. I say this because, Mills principle justifies that power can only be taken when another person is at harm, this is what the police of states all over have been doing to take action. You are allowed to protest in a peaceful manner at your will, but when it turns into the result of a “riot” or a non peaceful protest then this is where officers do have to take action with the power they are given. A question that has brought many thoughts to myself is, according to Mills principle what would be the circumstances considering the fact if you

Gun Control has been an issue that has been brought to the public’s eyes in recent years. This main issue has been going on for many years, for example when John F. Kennedy was assassinated; it raised public awareness to the lack of control on sales and also possession of guns in America. Until 1968 guns were available over the counter in stores and through mail catalogs to just about any adult in America. This was an example of how loosely guns were regulated which bring us back to the issue of guns. The constitution tells us in the second amendment that we, as American Citizens, have the right to bear arms. But the government is trying to change that by regulating everything to do with owning a gun. My stance: Gun

Scholarly Essay: Gun Control There has been considerable debate recently in Canada over the issue of gun control. The Canadian parliament enacted the Firearms Act to enforce gun control by requiring gun owners to register their firearms. Just recently, the government of Alberta lead in a charge, including five other provinces and numerous pro-gun groups, complaining that the law is unconst...

Mill makes the distinction between harm and inconvenience by defending the difference between an action that harm others and will have a lasting impact on other people, or an action that will be a nuisance to people. As Mills says earlier in the book, power that can be exercised over members of a civilized community that is against their will , whether physical or moral, is to harm others. Harm is an action that will affect others lives.The difficult part with defining harm is that it is very hard to determine what is harm, because so many actions that people do can affect others lives with the actor doing the action knowing they are harming others. On the other hand, Mills says that inconveniences are inseparable from the unfavourable judgements